Desai, Vivek

Abstract Identifying patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization among patients admitted with severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is an unmet clinical need. We performed a multicentric prospective cohort study using data from 4 different cohorts on well‐characterized patients hospitalized with severe AH. Data collected on 773 AH patients from 4 cohorts across the globe were randomly split into test (n = 390) and validation (n = 383) cohorts. We found that 32% of the patients developed inpatient AKI in the test cohort. Approximately 60% of patients met criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) at admission. Hepatic encephalopathy, SIRS, and Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score at admission predicted inpatient AKI with odds ratios of 3.86, 2.24, and 1.14, respectively. The AKI risk score developed using these predictors stratified risk of inpatient AKI to low (score <3), moderate (3‐4), and high (>4). These findings were replicated in the validation cohort. In the whole study cohort, patients with AKI had a lower 90‐day survival (53% versus 77%; P < 0.001). Those with AKI risk score of >4 had significantly lower 90‐day survival as compared with those with risk scores between 3 and 4 and <3 (47% versus 68% versus 88%; P < 0.001). In conclusion, AKI occurs frequently in AH patients and negatively impacts short‐term mortality. The AKI risk score is useful in identifying patients at high risk for inpatient AKI and may be useful for developing new therapeutic strategies to prevent AKI in patients with AH.

We performed a systematic review with network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty‐two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow‐up, were included. Nonselective beta‐blockers (NSBB), isosorbide‐mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all‐cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random‐effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49‐1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23‐1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21‐0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate‐quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08‐0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19‐0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14‐0.86), and low‐quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38‐1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB.Conclusion:NSBB monotherapy may decrease all‐cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.